HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Has the Mainstream Me...

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:14 PM

Why Has the Mainstream Media Not Done Better, More Informative Reporting on the Gamble v. US Case

This case is critical in relation to the Kavanaugh investigation. Yet, we’ve heard next to nothing about it. This borders on journalistic malpractice.

11 replies, 605 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to dlk (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:16 PM

1. It has been this way since they told us Iraq had WMDs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:17 PM

2. What is the Gamble vs U.S. case? Link??? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:18 PM

3. The Gamble decision is not as important as people think.

The case has to do with successive prosecutions for the exact same charges. This case has no effect on state charges as long as the do not rely on the exact same evidence.


Gamble was a prohibited possessor. He was arrested and convicted in state court as such. Immediately after the state conviction Gamble was indicted as a prohibited possessor pursuant to Fed law for the exact same incident. The appellant, Gamble, is arguing that two prosecutions for the same event is double jeopardy even though the convictions are from separate jurisdictions. It's important to note that the Federal Government, the DOJ is arguing that these types of prosecutions are NOT DOUBLE JEOPARDY.


In my 27 year legal career it was very rare to see successive prosecutions like this. Usually the state was more than willing to let the Feds bear the cost of prosecution and incarceration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:25 PM

4. Thanks for the explanation, and to answer OP's question: Much too complex;

no soundbites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:26 PM

5. Since you're the first poster that seems to understand this...a question if you don't mind.



Would Gamble enable someone, let's just say Don Jr., to confess to a broad range of crimes in federal court and then plea guilty with a long long (long) list of supporting evidence in his pleading...would he then be "immune" to state prosecution using that evidence. of course then he's eligible for a federal pardon assuming he can find someone willing to give it to him ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:42 PM

7. I'm curious too. Some have framed it as skirting double jeopardy and allowing...

trump to pardon allies no longer able to be prosecuted on state charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 10:00 PM

8. Plea agreements are offered by the prosecution.

If someone wanted to plead straight up to an indictment they could, but that still would not preclude the state from prosecuting state crimes. Gamble is dealing with the same crime, same evidence, two different jurisdiction (fed and state). Gamble also received concurrent sentences for both convictions.

Gamble is asking the SC to overturn a cased named Abbate v. United States, decided in 1959. That's how long dual-sovereignty prosecutions have been around.

Here's the government's petition arguing that dual-sovereignty is settled law:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-646/28031/20180116184058367_17-646%20Gamble.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 09:29 PM

6. Thank you for explaining this! NFM

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevilledog (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 10:32 PM

10. Thanks, confirmed by Jed Shugarman thread below. N/m

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 10:32 PM

9. No! Here's a better explanation.

I too was initially worried about Gamble. But here’s the truth, from jed Shugarman. Jed is very experienced here. Take a read.



?s=21

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlk (Original post)

Wed Sep 26, 2018, 11:08 PM

11. Because the Kavanaugh nomination is irrelevant to the outcome of this case?

The Gamble case was brought in response to an express invitation that someone bring a case challenging the dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy clause. That invitation was made in an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Ginsburg didn't mince words in suggesting that it is time for the dual sovereignty exception to go:

"The double jeopardy proscription is intended to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct. Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957). Current “separate sovereigns” doctrine hardly serves that objective. States and Nation are “kindred systems,” yet “parts of ONE WHOLE.” The Federalist No. 82, p. 245 (J. Hopkins ed., 2d ed. 1802) (reprint 2008). Within that whole is it not “an affront to human dignity,” Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, 203 (1959) (Black, J., dissenting), “inconsistent with the spirit of [our] Bill of Rights,” Developments in the Law— Criminal Conspiracy, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 920, 968 (1959), to try or punish a person twice for the same offense?"

If Ginsburg and Thomas are aligned on this issue then, one way or another, there is already is a majority on the Court to roll back the dual sovereignty exception with or without Kavanaugh.

Or, to put the question differently, if Ginsburg and Thomas are two votes to roll back the dual sovereignty exception, where do you think the other six Justices stand on the question? Do only two of them support the Ginsburg/Thomas position? Which two?

There have been a number of posts about the Gamble case on DU and they almost all don't portray the history of the case and the position of the justices accurately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread